Letters to the Editor
-
Romney and Looks
Maybe it's just me, but I certainly don't think Romney looks like "a prospective president." To these 60s sitcom overloaded eyes, his dark hair and jutting chin make him look a lot more like Fred Gwynne than a president.
Don't believe me? Look for yourself:
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1361/Mptv/1361/20790_0004.jpg.html?path=pgallery&path_key=Gwynne,%20Fred
Now ask yourself: do we really want Herman Munster in the Oval Office?
-
George Allen
I would just like to thank Jim Webb for defeating that Bush clone and sparing the country from the candidate that was almost sure to win the nomination. I have no doubt he would be far and away the front runner right now, and Allen is one of the few people in public life that I would almost prefer Bush to.
I guess I really should thank George Allen himself for blowing an election that should have been little more than a formality.
-
Poor Elephants
You know, I really like elephants. There was this amazing story on National Geographic about two Elephants who remembered each other from the same circus 40 years ago after being reunited in a nature preserve. I was crying my eyes out.
I think we should come up with another animal to represent the GOP.
How about the ostridge?
-
The Author Replies
I fear that I will get as many letters over my four-word shorthand for Ron Paul ("anti-war libertarian gadfly") as any other element in the article. So I thought I would spend a minute to illuminate this debate over my use of the word "gadfly," since presumably nobody objects to my calling Paul "anti-war" or "libertarian." Sitting in a hotel room in Manchester, New Hampshire, I have to make do with the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, available through my subscription to the Encyclopedia Britanica Online. It defines gadfly (second definition after a "horse fly") as "a person who stimulates or annoys especially by persistent criticism."
That certainly fits Ron Paul's role, so far, in the Republican debates. He stimulates and annoys by his persistent criticism of the war in Iraq.
Of course, the implication is that I am part of an insidious Beltway conspiracy in treating Fred Thompson and John McCain as more likely Republican nominees than Ron Paul. All I am doing is reflecting the orthodoxy of everyone I have interviewed on the Republican race (from political consultants to random New Hampshire voters), none of whom mentioned Paul as a possible GOP nominee.
Maybe I am completely wrong and a hidden Ron Paul vote will sweep him to victory. If so, I will publicly apologize and re-think my reporting methods to eliminate this sort of bias in the future. All I ask is the same degree of after-the-fact humility from the Ron Paul fans who are currently castigating me, if (as I predict) he proves not to be a major factor in the GOP race.
-
Salon marginalizes candidates for president
The media helps to define the public's perception. It is a responsibility of the media to report not distort. There should be some stated reason for the constant marginalization of Ron Paul's candidacy by the media.
Should we continue to read articles here when Salon joins in the future media chorus and marginalizes a candidate for screaming or having an expensive hair cut?
Ron Paul finds himself in the company of these other supposed political "gadflys":
Nelson Mandela
Newt Gingrich
Jimmy Carter
Winston Churchill
Ralph Nader
Gandi
Socrates
et al
-
"Gadfly"
Mr. Shapiro:
I appreciate you taking the time to respond and give us the proper definition of "gadfly". But I'd ask you to take into consideration that since the start of Paul's campaign, his supporters have on a daily basis witnessed him being called: a gadfly, crazy, a kook, a loony, fringe, a racist, an isolationist, a nutjob, etc. And those are some of the NICER terms. I guess we should be used to it by now, but it still inflames many of us to keep seeing these words used, even though Paul has obviously resonated with a wide and diverse group of people who have shown their support by giving him a $5 million 3rd quarter boost.
Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq is a major plank of his candidacy, and people respond to it. He is the only candidate, Republican OR Democrat, who has taken this hard a stand against it. Why should he refrain from talking about it?
As well, the media reports that approximately 70% of Americans are critical of the war in Iraq. Are we all gadflies?
I looked up the definition myself, but instead of giving that, here's a passage I found much more interesting:
"During his defense when on trial for his life, Socrates, according to Plato's writings, pointed out that dissent, like the tiny (relative to the size of a horse) gadfly, was easy to swat, but the cost to society of silencing individuals who were irritating could be very high. "If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me," because his role was that of a gadfly, "to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth."
-
One is different...
"Nelson Mandela, Newt Gingrich, Jimmy Carter, Winston Churchill, Ralph Nader, Gandi, Socrates, et al"
Can you spot the ones that do not belong to that list?
-
Two Wrong - Try Again!
None of these candidates has any experience whatever to suggest that they can "Defend America". [One Wrong]
They will all jeopardize America with a continuation of the futile and expensive effort to maintain a world-wide empire.
They will happily destroy our economy and whatever liberty remains in this country for their own glory and power.
Defeat Hillary? Not if any major poll in the past six months is any indication. They all lose. [Two Wrong]
There is only one "Anti-Hillary" who can win the support of Americans from every political corner: Ron Paul. He is the exact opposite of everything Hillary represents. There could be no clearer choice and no better champion of liberty.
Cause voters to hold their nose? Absolutely.
This country has been longing for a solid, principled, and forthright candidate for decades. Every voter who listens to what Ron Paul says is impressed. Some are only impressed by financial and political power, which Ron and thousands of very enthusiastic supporters are building every day. They know that he will not use that power for any other purpose than to restore liberty, reduce government, and conquer the world with the powerful ideas of our Founders.
If you think your "checks" are correct, wait three months.
You'll be amazed.